Mission

I was watching the DVD extras for some recent movie set in the 1970s and the set decorator or someone like that was noting how much effort they went to 'recreate' the 70s and how difficult and, in some cases, expensive it was to find this and that prop for the set. Some of it had to be recreated because they either couldn't find or didn't want to pay for the original stuff. And I thought to myself...but I remember the 1970s! It wasn't that long ago! That stuff should be easy to find! Some of it is, but some of it isn't. I think it was on this forum where we discussed how we think antiques are better made because they have survived for so long. And yet, what has survived for so long is the better made, and usually more expensive, items. All the day-to-day cheap stuff falls apart over time and gets thrown away without another thought. So maybe the 1970s isn't that easy to recreate for a movie. And then we try to recreate a time period from 300 years ago, with whatever documentation we can scrounge up. I've said it before, but I'll bet we'd be lucky to get half of it correct. As many surgical accounts as I've read and I still keep learning things I had fixed in my mind are not completely correct. This isn't to say we utterly fail, because I think we get better and better over time, but it is amazing how much more there always seems to be.

I get messages like that occasionally, but when hit the backpage key and retry it, it works fine.

If you don't like your hat, you might consider getting yourself a tricorn - that will fit in nicely both at Renfaires and historical events. The wig doesn't look too bad in those photos. Although I'll bet it would get hot an itchy after awhile.

The best way to weather an outfit is to attend lots of events.

Oh, I just answered your other question about this by sending to the website you've probably already found. Since Blackjohn stopped doing it there hasn't been much Pub representation for the event. If Cuisto Mako's suggestion doesn't pan out, I'd try contacting the Lockhouse Museum via the number on the flyer.

They have it posted on the Lockhouse Museum website as being July 13 - 15 this year.

FYI (and as a reference to keep all the related info on the Defoe vs. Johnson debate connected) the original discussion of who wrote the General History is in the thread Johnson and Defoe, as originally started by Foxe. I hadn't really been paying much attention to this before you mentioned it, but in the chapter on Condent (which is pretty much in the style of the first volume) he refers to Condent firing "a broadside and a volley of small arms, which began a smart engagement for the space of three glasses". (p. 125) So that doesn't seem like a reliable tell. Since whomever wrote it seems to have borrowed copiously from other accounts, I suspect the terminology in the factually-based accounts may depend at least in part on whatever source the author was using.

The Captain does have a point there, mister Quartermaster, sir.

Really? Why did the government care who published it at all? I figured people thought it must be a pen name because Moore went so far out of his way to prove it was written by Defoe and forever altered the public impression that it was written by Johnson. But if when it was published the public thought it was a pen name, the authorship questions must have begun there. I don't know why, but I find Schornhorn's treatment dull. I've picked it up and set it down four times in the last three years. I wouldn't call the original writing sparkling, but somehow reading it in the contemporary typeface makes it seem more interesting to me. (Well, except the chapter on Roberts, which is long and repetitive and the chapters on Misson and Tew which are sort of hard to follow at times for reasons I mentioned previously.)

The first book has a more consistent feel to it IMO except for the parts where letters are quoted or the author specifies that someone else has contributed material which he is using. The second one, not so much.

Ah, thank you muchly! Interesting that most of the wounds appear to have been shot of some form or another. I wonder if they referred to splinters caused by cannon balls as being caused by gunshot?

I am merging this with Histories, Backstories & Bios so all of these are together. There was a similar sort of thread called Pyracy Pub-towne but that one went hopelessly awry - although it was in a fun, chatty sort of way. Then there was a thread called Tell us about yer crew which is kind of related to this topic.

Conversing with Becky in the dark isn't so bad, it's when the lights get turned on and you get an eyeful of what...whom you're talking to! Michael made the dress - machine sewed because it was just for a skeleton - but that would have to be one skinnnnnnny person. Becky's waistline is probably size -10. Actually Deadeye told me he was told to take the dress off before putting her up. That must have been a right pain in the neck, too. Those stupid bolts are hard to work and there are a lot of them.

I probably should have quoted people in that response. I wasn't addressing you on that point, I was addressing Jib. Sometimes I swear you don't read the entire post... I do not want a sword. To reiterate... This is my edged blade of choice:

Just a few more modifications and you got ! "A man walks down the street in that hat... people know he's not afraid of anything."

Odd, and such a shame after all the work ye put into the pair. Um is not Becky supposed to look female? Yes she is. Time and money... I am guessing someone was thinking along socio-political lines when they removed her garb. I don't see it as promoting a social viewpoint, but some people are exceptionally touchy about such things. It's funny, I made a dozen head props before I realized they were all male (because they're far easier to make for various reasons) and decided that was biased. So I created a female head prop. One of my friends got all exercised about her. Nary a peep on the other dozen, but that one was a big problem. Sheesh.

In the beginning he's talking about the pocket instruments which were not always silver. I have extant examples I can point you to. So while some of them were silver, I take that as satire. In the end, it sounds like he's talking about a sword, although he could have facilitated this argument discussion if he'd have just said so. Either way, I am not getting a sword. It makes no sense to me for a surgeon to have a sword. It would make no sense to me in any age, but I don't tend to like to follow social conventions as a general rule, so I would be a poor example for historians I suppose. Although somewhere in the pirate accounts, I thought I saw another reference to a surgeon fighting (in a general way, not specifying weapons or such) during a battle. If I find it I will post it. Thanks for the reference up there, Foxe. It revises my opinion, although based on other accounts where the surgeons complain of being too busy to service all their patients, I suggest the surgeon and his mates would fight 1) when there were no wounded to tend to or 2) when it looked so hopeless that it was more important to fight than do their jobs. If you see any other interesting references to surgeons at sea, please post them or let me know of them. Also, it occurred to me this morning that I am the fighting surgeon - fighting in this post, that is.

Speaking of things not allowed, someone wouldn't put Becky up in her clothes inside the gibbet because it made her look female. I don't think that this was because of the people at the fort proper, however. What I wonder is what happened to Bucky. Bucky and Becky were made to be a pair and the whole thing would have made far more sense if both of them were up near each other. Twue wove...

In accordance with what you just said, I am reading the chapter on Captain White and that does seem more like the GHoP and not like the Tew chapter. The Tew and Misson chapters are more verbose and scattered in their narrative. Interesting, don't you think?

These are the photos from their books. If not there, where would they be shown in their best dress? See, that is my point. A surgeon, and particularly a sea-surgeon who was on the bottom run of the surgeon social scale ladder (unlike the ones I have shown in my post who were near the top of their professions), would probably not have fancy dress clothes. Some surgeons probably did have swords, although the first post I cited is the only place I've seen reference to such. I sincerely doubt it was a ceremonial sword (why have such on a ship?) nor am I totally convinced it was a sword at all. (Nor am I not, as I already said.)

I have found next to nothing about tobacco in any form in the surgical manuals. Thomas Sydenham - a Physician, mind you - introduced the tobacco smoke enema. Thomas Sydenham, Physician: Surgeons are often shown wearing wigs, although it would seem to me to be an obstacle when actually operating. Amputations by Lorenz Heister (1743) As for my English surgeons, I only have a few images: Richard Wiseman: John Moyle: John Woodall: All of these guys were surgeons to royalty at some time, yet to me they have a distinctly workman-like aura. (Woodall is from early in the 17th century, thus the ruff.) Of the three, only Moyle has that silly foppish look and I think it's due to the wig.

Surgeons, particularly those who worked on ships, were usually lower-class gentleman. I don't know how such people would regard swords or why they would have one shipboard. On the other hand, I don't know that they wouldn't. It just seems like an odd thing for a surgeon to have, given that he had to deal with the results. Land surgeons and surgeons to royalty would probably be of a different social standing, although there was a definite aspect of the workman about all surgeons from what I've read. (Physicians, OTOH, I would figure to be inveterate sword-carriers based on what I read on the wiki.) I like wikipedia, I actually think it's far more correct than incorrect, but it gets a bad rap from individual instances of incorrectly-entered info. I didn't know a fashion plate was a real thing. (I looked it up on wikipedia, though. ) Just goes to show you what I know about clothing styles. (I wondered why all the people in certain types of images looked so damned goofy and effeminate.)

Those are all portrait drawings - the kind I mentioned. Of all the artwork I have showing period and near-period surgeons, none of them have swords. There is a portrait of Pierre Dionis wearing armor, but this is not typical of the other drawings of him, suggesting it is highly stylized. (I like to use it on my web page for that reason - it looks very dramatic.) Armored Dionis Non-Armored Dionis

You know, I have noticed a marked difference in the style of writing in this book from the General History in several place. The 1728 Edition is credited to Charles Johnson like the first book. In the end of his introduction to Volume 1 (2nd Edition), Johnson mentions that "he intends to venture upon a second Volume." However some of the text has a different feel to it - almost as if it were written by a different author.

What is your source for this? (Keep in mind that portrait paintings were often romanticized - cleaned up and made to look better than the truth.)